The facts about the Supreme Court mifepristone decision
A review of the Supreme Court and lower courts’ decisions on the FDA approval of the anti-abortion drug, mifepristone.
Court rules Mississippi needs religious exemption to vaccine mandates
A Federal court ruled that the state of Mississippi must provide religious exemptions for the public school vaccine mandates.
Safety of the abortion drug mifepristone is supported by science
A Federal judge in Texas reversed the FDA approval of the abortion drug, mifepristone, despite strong scientific evidence that it is safe.
Brook Jackson lawsuit against Pfizer COVID vaccine dismissed
Professor Dorit Rubinstein Reiss writes about the dismissal of the lawsuit from Brook Jackson against Pfizer and their COVID vaccine trials.
Catie Clobes’ defamation lawsuit against NBC News dismissed
A Minnesota district court dismissed a defamation lawsuit from Catie Clobes against NBC for a report by Brandy Zadrozny and Aliza Nadi.
The anti-vaccine antitrust lawsuit — bad claims
Debunking a new antitrust lawsuit from Robert F Kennedy’s anti-vaccine organization Children’s Health Defense.
Vaccine court myths – instead, here are facts about the NVICP
The anti-vaccine world loves its myths, because, lacking any real scientific evidence supporting their outlandish claims, fairy tales are all they have. Not that I like picking and choosing the worst of the anti-vaccine urban legends, but the vaccine court myths are among the most egregious and ridiculous.
Although there are a lot of vaccine court myths, I wanted this article will focus on just three critical points:
- The vaccine court vs. civil courts for plaintiffs.
- Vaccine manufacturers are immune to lawsuits.
- Billions of dollars have been paid out to “victims.”
- The vaccine court said that vaccines cause autism.
Let’s get to the article.
Read More »Vaccine court myths – instead, here are facts about the NVICP
Lawsuit against California AB2098, which allows sanctions of doctors who pass false information
This article about a lawsuit against California’s new law, AB2098, was written by Dorit Rubinstein Reiss, Professor of Law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law (San Francisco, CA), who is a frequent contributor to this and many other blogs, providing in-depth, and intellectually stimulating, articles about vaccines, medical issues, social policy, and the law.
Professor Reiss writes extensively about vaccination’s social and legal policies in law journals. Additionally, Reiss is also a member of the Parent Advisory Board of Voices for Vaccines, a parent-led organization that supports and advocates for on-time vaccination and the reduction of vaccine-preventable diseases. She is also a member of the Vaccines Working Group on Ethics and Policy.
On September 30, 2022, California’s Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law AB2098, a bill that tells the medical board that misinformation and disinformation given to a patient as treatment or advice is “unprofessional conduct” worthy of sanction.
As a reminder, misinformation about COVID-19 is a real problem in the pandemic, leading to low vaccination rates that increased deaths and harm, and people using fake treatments against COVID-19.
On October 4, 2022, the first lawsuit against AB2098 was filed, brought in the name of two doctors with a history of COVID-19 misinformation – including promoting unsupported treatment like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine and deterring people from vaccinating. The doctors are represented by attorneys from the conservative organization Liberty Justice Center.
Although there are some doubts and uncertainties, the law should probably survive judicial review – and these doctors are likely typical of the kind of misinformer that made the law needed, and several of the claims they make are demonstrably untrue, which works in support of the law.
Read More »Lawsuit against California AB2098, which allows sanctions of doctors who pass false information
Settlement of lawsuit about COVID vaccine religious exemptions
This article about the settlement of a lawsuit and COVID-19 vaccine religious exemptions was written by Dorit Rubinstein Reiss, Professor of Law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law (San Francisco, CA), who is a frequent contributor to this and many other blogs, providing in-depth, and intellectually stimulating, articles about vaccines, medical issues, social policy, and the law.
Professor Reiss writes extensively in law journals about vaccination’s social and legal policies. Additionally, Reiss is also a member of the Parent Advisory Board of Voices for Vaccines, a parent-led organization that supports and advocates for on-time vaccination and the reduction of vaccine-preventable diseases. She is also a member of the Vaccines Working Group on Ethics and Policy.
Headlines about a settlement between healthcare workers and their employer related to COVID-19 vaccine religious exemptions led people to ask what is the relevance of that settlement. This post explains this settlement and puts the issue in context.
Three points need to be made:
- First, this is not the first time an employer settled a claim for denial of religious exemption.
- Second, sometimes the settlement is the result of an employer making mistakes in handling religious exemptions and having a really bad case, and settling is the right thing.
- Third, in legal terms, the settlement has no relevance to any other case. In practical terms, though, it can be used to put pressure on other employers, even when those employers are on legally solid ground.
District school vaccine mandates and preemption
This article about school district vaccine mandates and the principle of preemption was written by Dorit Rubinstein Reiss, Professor of Law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law (San Francisco, CA), who is a frequent contributor to this and many other blogs, providing in-depth, and intellectually stimulating, articles about vaccines, medical issues, social policy, and the law.
Professor Reiss writes extensively in law journals about vaccination’s social and legal policies. Additionally, Reiss is also a member of the Parent Advisory Board of Voices for Vaccines, a parent-led organization that supports and advocates for on-time vaccination and the reduction of vaccine-preventable diseases. She is also a member of the Vaccines Working Group on Ethics and Policy.
On July 5, 2022, Judge Mitchell Beckloff from the Superior Court of Los Angeles granted a petition [add decision] to strike down Los Angeles Unified School District’s (LAUSD) COVID-19 vaccine mandate. This decision is in line with a previous decision in relation to San Diego’s School District Mandate. In both cases, the heart of the decision is that under current California law, the power to mandate vaccines belongs to the state, not an individual district – in legal terms, that state law preempts the power of the district in this case.
In both cases, this was an issue that could always have gone both ways. It also does not change much on the ground, since LAUSD never actually implemented its mandate. Nonetheless, it does have implications for the districts’ power to mandate vaccines going forward.
Read More »District school vaccine mandates and preemption